Spike TV is debuting a new show on Sept. 1 called "Surviving Disaster" hosted by a guy who is described as being a SEAL veteran. The promos I've seen on TV make it look interesting but I'm sure it will provide fodder for discussion...! Here's hoping it proves worthwhile.

This short clip was pretty gripping.

I suspect that this show will get a lot of criticism from certain camps, like Man vs. Wild did. To me, I just approach these types of shows as entertainment, not education or training, so if the information seems "wrong" or "dangerous" or whatever, I don't take it too personally since it's entertainment. It would be like getting furious at a summer action flick over their unsafe gun handling.

However, I certainly hope that I can pick up some new bits of information here and there, too.

From the clips I have seen, he seems to stress a lot about the mental factor, which is something that I think seems to get glossed over. One thing I dont get though-why is it always someone with some sort of SF training that has to show this? Those of us who have served, know full well that ANY survival training you get, is simply designed for you to stay alive & hidden long enough for your forces to find you-or make your way back. Not taking anything away from it, but MY choice for an instructor would be one that does this on a regular basis-the US military doesnt typically drop their troops off in the middle of nowhere, without food, to "survive". Their main goal is to fight-if they find themselves in a survival situation then, yes, they are expected to live off the land-this isnt something that is normal to them though, as it usually means you are on Plan B (run away!!!) and something bad has happened.
I know that they get theatre specific survival training (during the first Gulf war, I went through a week long desert survival class, taught by SF, in Yakima WA), and they stressed the same thing; your survival depends on your locality and proximity to friendly forces. If locals are hostile (and you usually treat them as if they are), then you shouldnt contact them. Your survival LARGELY depends on moving back to safety, staying hidden, and staying hydrated. But, I digress...
I want to check this out. I thought it looked interesting, the fact that they are taking real-world scenarios (earth quakes, plane crashes, etc), and using them as a teaching experience. These are the most likely scenarios any of us would encounter-not a post-apocalyptic world. I am looking forward to this one!

On a side note; what does the sudden prevalence of all these survival shows tell us about our future, both as a country, and as a race? Should we start wearing tin foil hats now?!?!?!

much like everything we do and learn from, we can glean something from it, and throw away the hype. This show may have tons of usless information, or it may have tons of great information. it is a matter of what we can glean from it.

On this site, I have every confedance that those that come to this site posses the mental attitude aned the knowldege to sort the BS from the truth. I know I will be watching it to see what is offered and see what is said.

More curious is the fact that so many production companies think we need to be prepaired, or at least that they can profit off a show atempting to make us prepaired.

I would rather have an aboriginal guide teach survival than SF guys that have all sorts of fancy supersecret gizmos and support networks to rescue them. They don't get lost behind enemy lines for several months and have to live off the land. Give us someone with real world experience

It will be interesting to see what people think of it after a couple of episodes.

This TV show is just basically Urban Survival Porn for Mall Ninjas. Throw most SFs a tin of Tuna and ask them to get to the contents without a P-38 and they would be stuffed (Cody knows how to though ). None of the so called scenarios in this show (from what I have gleaned from the video trailers) are likely to occur. This SF guy would save more lives by just telling folks to wear sensible shoes, be careful of slippery surfaces, don't drive to fast and to secure that gun when not in use.

Most SFs don't have a problem getting a fire going though; forget about rubbing two sticks together, they can always rely on the fly boys to drop 500lbs of Napalm after they call one in on their commercial Iridium phones.

Forget about terrorists invading your home or the local Mall (if this a substantial threat then it would probably be best to move to a another city or country before it happens). If your gonna get shot chances are its gonna be your spouse, your best friend or your neighbour doing the deed.

Oh and if an SF guy wants a decent pair of boots he will be buying them from the same outdoor shops down at the mall.

I didnt mean to turn this into an SF bashing thread. My point was that Military survival and Civilian survival are 2 different animals-sure, some things are the same, but, military is more about evading and rejoining your forces, whereas civvie-urban survival is about getting found.
I have worked with the SF guys-they know their stuff. Its just a different mindset as opposed to civilian-that was my point.

I have only one gripe about these shows.
Most of them turn into bushcraft shows and are not really relevant for 90% of the situations that would be a real threat to 99% of the people on the planet.

If he does concentrate on realistic scenarios I will be very interested.
Most people have no clue about how to respond to most disasters, or how to be ready for one so it becomes an annoying inconvenience instead of a deadly threat.

The prevelance of these shows stems from the fact that "survival" items, books, and whatnot are selling at a feverish rate. Nationwide the sales at military surplus stores is the best it's been in a decade, it not more. The media hyping how bad the economy is and don't even get started on the scare people are in about the swine flu... all these factors add up to the fact that people are on edge, and will probably be for the foreseeable future. Thankfully this site exists to help separate the wheat from the trash. Just the insights I've learned from the level-headed and prepared souls who share this site let me sleep better at night. These shows are about ratings and advertising dollars after all, so if they can manipulate public opinion and heighten the sphincter factor, all the better.

My 2 cents.....YMMV.

"Surviving Disaster" looks interesting so I'll watch the first episode to see if it piques my interest.

To pull a quote from Cade Courtley in the Debut Trailer "We give you information and stuff you can do so that the average guy can survive that situation." To me that means they're going to take more of a practical approach to problem solving rather than an approach for excitement's sake. Hopefully this will mean that the show is geared more toward learning.

If it's just another stunt show I'll more than likely give it a pass. It's not that I find that type of program offensive, just not the type of show with which I prefer.

In the Bus Nuke Trailer, no one enclosed themselves in an icebox at ground zero in an attempt to survive, so that is promising.

We'll find out what the show is like September 1st!

"Most of them turn into bushcraft shows and are not really relevant for 90% of the situations that would be a real threat to 99% of the people on the planet."

I think that is the key point. The Bushcraft kinds of shows are the ones that sell the most advertising. Which is the more exciting show? The one that show you how to start a fire with in a raging blizzard with two sticks and some pocket fuzz (not realistic for the vast majority) or the ones that would show you the best way to store and rotate canned food (real life).

LW

P.S. Can anyone tell me how to do the quotes in the little box from another posting that has the posters name and all?

When you go to answer there is a place that says quote beside where it says reply. Try that instead of just reply.

COOL !!

Thanks,
LW

One thing I was taught by folks was that, if you can SEE a nuclear blast, you will not SURVIVE said blast. I am unsure whether thats true or not, never having been in one...but, it sounds like good advice to me-stay away from large metropolitan areas!

Let me also chime in on this SF bashing, its uncalled for. The SF is not a group of super soldiers using high tech spy gear. In fact, in the field, most Infantry line companies have more high tech equipment at their disposal. SF, aside from specific ODA's, are only as good as the indigenous forces they work with and tend to use equipment that meet those peoples lowest common denominator. Aside from some mission essential equipment such as JDAM lasers and sophisticated communication equipment in order to work covertly with global command and control structures.

The greatest tool at the disposal of any SF person is their mind. With military and civilian training that is far superior than what 99.99% of the population will ever receive, they also have outstanding mediation training to work with other groups. Using an analogy in this thread, who says this person WASN'T given comprehensive training from an Australian Aborigine? And what makes an Aborigine more qualified to survive a disaster than an Apache or someone who is Amish, depending on the situation?

To chose a SF person for a show on Surviving Disasters is not a terrible thing. In fact, this person probably has great charisma, a background that resonant with the American zeitgeist, and most importantly has been trained to impart advice using a mind that has been trained to be an effective instructor.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

If I might add to that:
Most "Special Forces" and by that I mean SAS, SBS, DELTA, SEAL, RANGERS et al only take individuals who are of above average intelligence.

In other words: No idiots.

All of the above run selection courses that are specifically designed to test for mental toughness and agility.

Physical toughness is desired certainly, but anyone in reasonable physical condition can be trained up to the desired level.

How does that translate in to our terms of reference?

Simple: Survival is 40% preparation and training (to give you the basic skills and tools), 60% determination to survive.

It has been demonstrated time and again that people who want to survive, will survive. People who don't have that determination won't, no matter how lavishly you equip them.

After watching the clips on the show's site, I'm going to check this show out just because of this one quote from an interview with the host:

"We don't do anything with pee."

=D

Hello All! I think this will be a great show and very informative. I also wanted to put it out there that my father, Mike Teters, was interviewed for Surviving Disaster by Spike and will be on the episode concerning FIRE. He was in a propane explosion back in 2006, and amazingly he survived it! (well after months of being kept alive by a ventilator If you have time to check out his actual story you can read it and news articles at www.miketeters.com. Thank you! My father's site is in no way affiliated with Spike.

Good post comms.

I agree with oldsoldier, if you can see a nuke go off you are toast. But I recently had some training courtesy of Uncle Sugar on VBIEDs (a.k.a. truck bombs) and the blast radius of 20,000 pounds of explosives is pretty wide. Point is, the scenario from the "Surviving Distaster" bus teaser could easily happen with a VBIED, and you could be outside the kill zone but inside the "pressure wave will knock you silly" zone.

Thank you Lynne for your post! This indicates that the show is interested in showing some real-world things.

I look forward to the show.

Comms, you put it much more eloquently than I could. Thank you. In fact, when SF goes through Robin Sage, it is ALL mental testing-they put you in impossible situations, situations where there ISNT a good outcome-but you HAVE to make a choice. Couple that with being tired, hungry, wet, hot/cold, etc, most people would give up. Thats the crowning achievement-Robin Sage. It puts everything you have been doing for months into one little exercise. they teach you the physical stuff, then see if you can handle the mental stuff, on your own.
All the training in the world doesnt matter if you are frozen in place, incapable of making a choice. Most times, ANY choice is better than none. Dealing with consequences later is just part of the game. Hindsight will ALWAYS be 20/20-but for most quick situations, its action vs inaction that decides whether you live or not.
We had a poster in my platoon room when I was active. It was a picure from WWI I believe. It showed a battlefield, somewhere in France, with a dead soldier who had fallen on a barbed wire fence. The caption read (I have to paraphrase, as I dont recall the exact quote)"And, when the time came do make a decision, he hesitated. And, in his hesitation, he died from indecision". that was almost 20 years ago, and that quote has stuck with me. My point is that ANYONE can LEARN to be decisive; but until its been proven they can act under fire, its just "training". I think I just changed my own mind on all this...lol. I think I would prefer a military person showing this...so long as its kept to civilian-related standards. Still, am going to watch it regardless.

I too am looking forward to watching the show, then on merits either continue or not.

Little disagreement on seeing a nuke, BTW was my military MOS, Pershing Missile (small nuke = 460Kt or 1/2 MT), depends on lots of factors including weather.
Actually thermal burns up close are the most unsurvivable, both overpressure shockwave and velocity of wind die off faster than you would think. A lot of the models on the web typically use very large sizes say 10 MT, when most of the so called strategic size weapons are now around 300 Kt, or 33 times less.
At the size most likely to happen (Nuke, not conventional) the thermal/radiation footprint (assuming air burst) of less than 2 miles, 5 PSI op shockwave of less than 5 miles. The calculations are simple (I will post if you like, but the web has lots and lots) cubic scaling formulas.
You easily could see something depending on terrain, weather for 10 to 50 miles.

Point of my comment, people often have fatalistic views of surviving a nuke, which are unwarranted. There were survivors of H and N, which were less than one mile from ground zero.

You are right in that if you had your druthers you would be as far as possible.

Last point:non state actor sized nukes are mostly psychological devices more than physical.

For Nation state size and quantity while terrible do not mean universal death.

Unfortunately, this may not be true. My father, RIP, was present during the A-bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. He was one of the guys you always see with the "welding goggles" on standing at the rail of the ship watching the ever expanding mushroom cloud form above the Pacific Ocean. He watched 2 of the bombs from as close as 20 miles away. Remember, the Army used soldiers as test subjects even before this took place.

Now I understand that those nukes are firecrackers compared to the nukes that are in use now. What if you are not in the primary blast area what then?

Very Much the opposite.
The ones tested in Bikini etc were larger than in use today.
Some as big as 20MT, nobody has anything in use (deliverable) bigger than 10 MT most today are much more accurate and therefore typically 1MT or SMALLER, Minuteman III is 300kt or .3MT.
Some U.S. submarine warheads are 1MT size, again most of our stuff in use (not in storage) is 1MT or less mostly less.
The Russians are usually a little less accurate and therefore a little bigger.

Nukes while terrifying are survival-able except for the inner most radius of action, typically the 99% dead zone is a couple of miles only.

While I hope none of us ever finds out, people would survive.
The oft retort of kissing your A** good by or everyone will perish is a myth.

Some soldiers were less than one mile from test in the desert and while many had health problems, none died directly as a result.

There is DOD footage of a unit of soldiers climbing out of foxholes and advancing, with the mushroom cloud rising in front of them. No special gear, just GI uniforms, rifles, steel pot helmet. Many of these are on the web.

A small percentage did suffer medical problems, but again not more than a couple of percent.

I sure don't want to minimize the downside which is awful, but if you are in a city somewhere and a strike happens, don't give up, you are not toast unless you panic.
As always in any survival situation, knowledge and will to live are the key ingredients.

If you want to look at the death toll from the bombing of Hiroshima you find more people died from the firestorms than from the radiation or blast effect.

Hiroshima (August 6, 1945)
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm


Nagasaki (August 9, 1945)
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm

Great stuff, Marsh; thanks! I highly appreciate SMEs.

Wow. I'm really surprised no one's commented on the show yet.

I watched it, and from a layman's point of view I thought it was pretty good. There wasn't anything that struck me as absolutely stupid, nor anything the common person couldn't do.

A hijacking is a desperate situation that calls for desperate action. It seemed to me that his suggestions were doable, and represented realistically.

So what did you learned, experienced people think?

DVR'd, watching later.

I am neither learned nor experienced when it comes to hijacking, but I though the show was very good. Practical, thought provoking and for the most part realistic. My middle daughter and I watched the show together and she focused in too much on the calm and obviously trained presenter. I think in real situation, it is going to be much more of a panic situation; you are unlikely to have someone on board with that degree of demeanor. The other minor criticism, was that little was presented in terms of alternative actions, if the first idea/plan did not work as presented.

I will definitely watch the show again and feel of the various shows that have been presented on survival, it ranks up there with the better productions (at least based upon the first show), time will tell.

Pete

They sure made it seem easy to land a commercial jet. Just turn on the auto pilot until you're about 80 feet off the ground. And they'll talk you through the rest...

I hadn't particularly planned on watching it, but I caught it last night.

Not bad, and I think it shows promise, at least as far as being realistic and providing decent information. I don't recall really rolling my eyes at any of the suggestions. Oh, except for using the cell phone as a diversion. That seemed almost James Bond-ish to me, but in all fairness, the point was to create a diversion. Whether you used the cell phone or not was beside the point.

Landing a commercial airliner seems crazy, but the Mythbusters also demonstrated that it's possible for untrained people to successfully be talked through a landing (at least in a simulator) so I wouldn't say it's impossible.

There was one thing that I thought was lacking, which is typical on TV shows that suggest violence (and I'm not claiming any sort of fighting competence!). It was about taking on the knife wielding hijackers. Although he suggests using something as a shield and making the comment that in a knife fight, the one who bleeds least, wins, I didn't think the show really made clear that you're going to be cut in a knife fight. None of the good guys bleed after subduing the bad guys even though the show isn't shy about showing blood.

Granted, adrenaline may mask the pain, but are most folks mentally prepared to be cut or stabbed? On the show, they basically just dog piled on the hijackers, but if you ever watch those security videos from prison attacks, it's not uncommon to be stabbed and slashed multiple times in any encounter. Would the average person keep going after getting ice picked a few times in quick succession? Maybe not, if you're not mentally ready to keep fighting.

Of course, the show throws a lot of information at you (well, they do have to fill up an hour!). In the heat of a life or death situation, I doubt most of us will remember even 5% of something we watched on a TV show a couple years ago. Once that adrenaline is pumping, only the most basic decisions or well rehearsed actions are going to kick in.

I'm also wondering, post-9/11, what kind of terrorism training flight attendants have received and whether they would take a more active leadership role than they did on the TV show last night?

To me, these programs are still primarily entertainment, but I think I might make a point to catch the next one, which is more near and dear to me--an office building fire.

I agree. Sure, the concept of overthrowing the hijackers and landing the jumbo jet is pretty Hollywood (though grounded in the reality of 9/11). But I felt the individual pearls about dealing with the situation were valid and clearly came from the input of real practitioners. The prisoner control methods & the psychology behind them were accurate. The application of an occlusive dressing to a sucking chest wound was appropriate, and the point that a spontaneously breathing patient does not need CPR is dirt-simple but rarely highlighted on TV.

Mindset is more important than tactics, skill or equipment and the show highlighted mindset over all other factors. I especially liked how the host set the example of making the most use of other peoples' skills and abilities, and working to keep his cohorts calm.

I think this one episode has already put the show in a class beyond "Man vs Hotel" and I look forward to the future episodes.



Agreed, I feel that the structure fire scenario will be more widely applicable for most folks.

There have been occurrences where SF trained individuals and US military personnel have been on aircraft subject to hi-jacking. The result was usually they ended up being the first thrown from the aircraft onto the runway after being shot or stabbed.

Here is some US government advise for what to do in a Hijacking.

http://ntc.doe.gov/curriculumareas/cita/ci_awareness_guide/T4travel/Hijack.htm

Now if in an emergency situation such as a airline hijacking and I had Cade Courtley in my face saying "I'm Cade Courtley and I'm about to save your life" I just know that my day has just gotten a whole lot worse. Now of course if the aisle was filled with Aberdeen Casuals, Millwall bushwhackers or even some Hells Angels then retaking the aircraft might be a different story.

Cade Courtley doesn't even have a facial twitch.

In fact, there was at least one that survived both H and N. Talk about a string of bad luck. That said, he is still alive today I believe.

Greg
(always amused at what gets posted about nukes and radiation on this board)

We have a family friend who is a Chief Attendant on flights for a large airline beginning with A*, and she says less training than you would expect. Honestly though she didn't go into details when I asked sometime after 9/11. She said several co-workers of hers are fairly proficient at self-defense. And that doesn't mean they don't discuss scenarios and how they could react. Usually its with the care for the condition of the craft and passengers, which may be a little conservative for some of the rest of us, but the reality is that until you know or have reason to think otherwise a hijacking may not end with everyone dead. I think its highly situational how they would react to an in-air hijacking. In the exact scenario outlined last night, including a locked cockpit takeover, probably you would attempt to subdue the hijackers and enter the cockpit, because that scenario admits the distinct possibility that you are not really a hostage but are so much hamburger sitting on a large jet fuel projectile. Anyway, this show will give us something more to talk about at the next bbq.

If anything I wonder if in reacting to such a scenario, would you apply additional lethal force to the hijackers? Frankly I wouldn't stop at subduing them, not if it meant a possibility of them escaping and getting up and renewing their attack on the plane at some critical juncture. Good point to focus on disabling blows to the larynx or airway. I can think of several surfaces on a jetliner that should crush their skulls and render them unconsious, maybe worse. Brutal, but more effective. Maybe too much for the season opener, or for cable.

I think also marshalling enough force among passengers to take on the hijackers and overcome them could be tough - not everyone watches Spike / cable.

Perhaps pre-9/11, but I think now would be a different story.

Pete

Maybe so - no shortage of willing bodies, I was referring to willing bodies ready to mount an attack along similar lines. The guy on TV said you would have to use hand signals and other non-verbal cues to set things up. Looking around an airplane cabin I might see 2-3 people who would react with the right sort of aggression, but how to make sure they can, or will do so?

I didn't see anything that I thought was really bad or wrong advice (not that resisting hijackers or flying jumbo jets are my areas of expertise), but I gotta say the host reminded me a little of Bear at times, and not in a good way.

You guys are right, the days of passengers sitting passively by as hijackers take over the plane/guided missile are probably over. Along that line, I'm glad he made some effort to explain the necessity for the overwhelming application of extreme and brutally violent force in that sort of life or death struggle. It goes against our civilized natures, but that's what it takes. As the homeowner explained when the cops asked why he shot the robber six times, "my gun only held six bullets." It pays to be sure.

I'll watch future episodes with interest.

Maybe the source for that line--and perhaps more topical to the pedophile thread:

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Okay, something that finally occurred to me (I'm a little slow sometimes, but I eventually get there):

They showed everyone's purse/bag being stowed in the rear lavatories.

Does anyone know if they really do that when they have time to prepare for a hard landing? I sure wouldn't want to be evacuating the plane without my wallet, keys, cellphone, pda, ID, ATM card, etc.

If so, then I'm going to be wearing loaded cargo pants if I ever fly again!

I missed this show!!! I will have to see if I can find it online, and watch the new one next week.

No idea - but if we're in a crash situation and the attendant asks me for what's in my pockets, she gets what I got. And if we survive, I head to AmEx, get a cash advance, and buy any/all other survivors a night on the town or two. Wallet, keys etc etc just don't matter to me. I assume they are told to do this to cut down on the high speed projectile potential.

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid or something, but does anyone else find it troubling that a television program would show in great detail how to get through a reinforced cockpit door? I'm sure the bad guys have already figured it out, but it still bothers me.

Had to vent there for a second .....

Sorry,
LW

That's the old "security by obscurity" mode of thinking. "If nobody knows how to break into the cockpit, then they're safe, right?"

Better off shining the light of day on any problems so they'll have pressure to fix it.

If you can't find it elsewhere, let me know. At some point, I need to be forced to figure out how to download and copy stuff off my DVR.

Perhaps.

All I was trying to say is that we (meaning Joe Q. Public) don't necessarily need to know those kinds of things. Didn't mean to imply that we should bury our heads in the sand. I just don't know if a broadcast show like that is the best way to get the shortcomings out. Earlier in the program there was a security expert or somebody like that who was commenting along the lines of security being so much greater than before that any hijackers now would be much more sophisticated and prepared. By openly broadcasting those flaws, are we running the risk of giving the less sophisticated hijackers ideas? That was kind of the premise behind my comments. The same thing could be said about the knives they used. If it plants the idea in some bad guys head, I think that's a bad thing.

I guess the bottom line is that no matter how hard we try, we cannot protect everyone from everything. If someone wants to break into your house badly enough they will find a way no matter how many different flaws are pointed out to you in your home security. You can keep fixing them and having new ones pointed out to you and fixing them and having them pointed out to you and fixing them ...... The best thing you can do is to make it as difficult as possible for them. Then they go on their way.

LW

I think the drink-cart-as-battering-ram is pretty well known to anyone thinking of breaching the cockpit. But now that you mention it, I remember that I was surprised that that aeronautical engineer guy actually admitted something to the effect that "if you apply enough force, the door may fail". (sorry, I don't remember any of the exact wording) I thought he'd say something more discouraging, like you'd have to drive a small car down that narrow plane aisle to have any chance of breaching the reinforced door. Obviously false, but maybe it'll discourage some loony who watches the show.

I sure hope that a real door is strong enough to take more than just two rams from a drink cart.

My suggestion for Arneys comment is simple: design break-apart drink carts. they can be structurally sound how then need to be (vertically), but, when enough force is applied horizontally, say, when used as a ram, it buckles, comes apart, etc. Helluva lot cheaper than replacing doors...

Brilliant!

Personally, I thought I could make a fortune by producing something like those spring-loaded stoppers that pops out of the bottom of your shopping cart at the supermarket when you cross that yellow line outside the door. I know that always stops me in my tracks. It's just gotta work with suicide hijackers and drink carts, too!

Legos!

I've bolded the key word here: Individuals. If someone tries to hijack a plane post-911, they are not going to be facing individuals, they are going to be facing a mob. A very angry mob.



That needs to be updated.





You won't need Aberdeen Casuals, Millwall bushwhackers or Hell's Angels in the event of a hijacking attempt. You'll have a ready-made angry mob.

Never under estimate the power of a good old fashioned dogpile. Sure, someone is going to likely get hurt. That's why the dogpile is effective. Simple disparity of numbers. Active shooters have been taken down by a dogpile. People armed with improvised primitive weapons won't stand a chance.

The only problem is with getting the dogpile to actually happen.

The cult of rugged individualism has made it almost certain you will be acting alone while everybody else watches.
Just look at the number of times you see it in the news. People murdered while a crowd of their fellow humans stand around refusing to get involved and thinking it is not their problem.
Then after it is all over they all complain about how such a thing can happen without anybody trying to stop it.

This is why I say there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

At least the bikers understand the one on all and all on one principle.

I don't believe the two situations are at all equivalent. I'm moving, so I don't have time to respond fully, but I'll post my thoughts later. Short version: You can't walk away from a plane hijacking. People no longer are going to assume that any hijackers want a free ride and their buddies released from jail, the assumption is going to be "we're all going to die if these men succeed." The dogpile will happen, and has already happened on at least one occasion I know of.

I HIGHLY doubt we will see another plane hijacking in the near future for two reasons: one, its been done, measures have been put in place, and, well, the leaders arent dumb. They know it likely wouldnt work again-they see that they only had a 75% success rate last time-knowing that next time there likely will be a zero percent (think of the shoe bomber-he was quickly subdued), they will choose softer targets. People will generally react one of two ways when faced with a life or death situation-they will attempt to control the situation, or they will die relatively passively. I would like to think that, in a hijacking situation, the majority of people on a plane would assume the former mindset.
The second reason is that they surf these sites-they do their intel work. the 1996 attempted WTC bombing was a est-it didnt work. So, they went to plan B. We didnt learn the first time-hopefully, we did the second. I am SURE they have read a lot of websites, to include this one, as part of their homework. The people running the show are VERY intelligent-most have been educated here or in Britain. When I was in Gitmo, they had some high level folks down there-a lot of professors of physics, and mathemeticians. Some that were language professors...one of the professors who was detained wrote a book on how to resist interrogation an gain sympathy from the west (and, well, it worked, to a degree). These guys know how to research, how to plan, how to get others to act.

I just finished watching the first episode from last week.

Neat thing in the show about the "war cry".

Also, don't forget to ask if anyone has ever flown a flight simulator. Some of those are so realistic that if they have a lot of hours ( I dunno... maybe over 50? ), they might be the best shot. Don't under-estimate the power of console video games! lol

There is a difference between landing prop planes and jet engine planes. Well, and ones with short stubby landing gears and huge towering behemoths too!

I only caught the last few minutes of last night's episode on escaping a burning building. What did you all think of it?

I personally expect the next attack will involve radioactive material in some way. I'm not ruling out actual nuclear devices, but I think a conventional explosive dispersing radioactive material is more likely.

It'll be done in a way that hasn't been addressed much, or a way that simply cannot be identified in advance. An ordinary vehicle at a sporting event or similar large gathering, or a small aircraft flying over a population center, apparently making a normal approach to a small airport until it diverts at the last minute.

And I'm sure that if I can think of it, so can they.

I was looking forward to this second episode about escaping an office fire, but came away kind of unsatisfied. Anyone else feel that way?

This episode seemed to have a number of things that just seemed...not so practical. For one thing, this approach they take in the show where Cade is orchestrating his own little "squad" of fellow workers. I can understand the utility of giving people tasks to do in a crisis, but I have never heard of any real life examples of something like this happening in any fast paced, real fire or situation requiring escape, like an active shooter situation.

What was the deal with having to check why the sprinklers weren't working? To my knowledge, no sprinkler will be on if there is no fire or heat below it to break that capsule that they were trying to jimmy. If a space is cool enough to enter, I wouldn't expect any sprinklers to be on there.

Breaking through the drywall was one technique that I had never really thought of before when escaping a fire or even an active shooter and probably the one new, interesting technique I took away from that episode.

I'm was surprised that there wasn't any mention of any sheltering-in-place techniques. Granted, I suppose the point of the episode was escape, but many high rise office building and hotel fire plans only evacuate select floors immediately impacted by a fire. The occupants on the other floors are to stay where they are, presumably safe long enough for the fire department to get there and knock down the fire. 9/11 may have changed the plans in some buildings, but most tall office buildings can't get around the fact that they were not designed with fire stairs with enough capacity to evacuate all the occupants to the ground in a reasonable amount of time. You can't even open the stairwell doors and have people trying to pass by without a big traffic jam.

And how many of us would be willing to rappel out of a 10th or 11th floor window using ethernet and printer cables? To me, that was definitely one of those Poseidon Adventure moments.

One fact of life which I was hoping the show would address is the problem of locked doors. People have died in smoke-filled stairwells because once they entered the stairwell, the doors automatically locked behind them and they were unable to get back out of the stairwell. Or many office doors or suites are locked, so if you exit the stairwell on a different floor and you're not an employee of that particular business, you could get stuck.

I wish they'd do something to make Cade a bit more likable. He's just really stiff and I don't feel any particular affinity to him. In contrast, Terry Schappert on the History Channel show Warriors can be a bit sappy at times and he mentions his own Special Forces background way too often, but I like the guy. I feel some loyalty to him and that's part of what makes me want to watch that particular show (and it's a well done and informative show IMHO).

I am in general agreement with Arney here. I too never thought of mouseholing, although it is standard practice in MOUT ops. One thing that I TOTALLY disagree with is the wetting yourself down-I understand it cooling you, but, as I have friends on several different FDs, I had asked before why they dont simply wet themselves down. The answer is to avoid steam burns due to the water flash-evaporating. Now, granted, with bunker gear on, it may be different, as you are heading INTO hot rooms, and have an outer layer that pretty much makes you a pressure cooker, but I am still on the fence about this. wetting something to breathe through is fine-wearing clothing that is soaked, and suddenly being exposed to high heat, I would think that could cause 2nd degree burns over most of your body. Any firefighters here please chime in, as the flash steam scenario to me is a little freaky!

Water conducts heat. It is the same reason why you don't want to be wet in cold weather.
(The weight of the water is only a minor problem in comparison)
If you try lifting a hot pot in the kitchen with a dry and then a wet towel you will see why you want to be dry.

You don't want clothing that turns into fuel for a fire or that will melt and stick to your body either, but it is unlikely that people will start wearing Nomex everywhere all the time.
A lot of times people are severely burned because their clothes caught fire.

I was wondering if I had missed that point last night. If they're going to take the time to stop and remove all the metal from their bodies before proceeding, or to take a pit stop in the restroom to do a little "freshening up" and wetting down their clothes, did they mention discarding clothing made of synthetics, like stockings or blouses and such?

Yeah, I noticed that too. He even mentioned the "silk tie". But, that poor guy that got the 3rd degree burns was probably wearing polyester. I'm pretty sure from "10 feet away" that would melt.

I saw a video a few years ago during CERT training. Showing a fire fighter that had not put on a shirt, but had his bunker gear with the suspenders over his shoulders. There was a flash fire/explosion. He suffered 1st and 2nd degree burns (lucky guy!) over his chest. Only where the suspenders had covered his skin was he not burnt.

People would pretty much have to go naked if all non-fireprof clothing is to be removed.... granted, One could remove the worst synthetic materials (those that both melt and burn, and ignite at low temperatures), but most fabric burns pretty easily. The only commonly used clothing material I know of that has any fire resistance properties is wool, which really is excellent. But wearing wool in an office environment is not really that common, I think...

Which would be one argument in favor of wetting down your clothes before hand.

Personally, I'm not sure which answer is correct--wetting down or keeping dry. What's proper for a fire fighter could be a very different application than these office workers. A fire fighter may need to stand their ground in the vicinity of flames and great radiant heat for some time, while the workers are more interested in just quickly getting past hazards like that wearing fairly flammable clothing.

Reminds me of an old joke about a physicist, a mathematician, and an economist who get lost in the desert with only a can of beans and no can opener. They set to arguing about how to open the tin.

The mathematician suggests putting the tin on a hard surface and dropping a big rock on it to burst it open.

The physicist ridicules this notion and suggests building a campfire and placing the tin in the middle, so it will burst open from the heat. The mathematician finds this notion equally silly.

As they are arguing, the economist starts laughing at them. "Why do you need to make it so complicated?"

"Okay," they ask him, "how would you do it?"

"Easy," says the economist. "First of all, let's assume we have a can opener..."

For the vast majority of you who just went 'HUH?', the joke is that mathematicians are always accusing economists of basing their theories on unproven or even unrealistic assumptions about the real world. I tell the joke just to make the point that such "friendly rivalry" isn't confined to the armed forces of the world. :-)

If you have access to a Wool blanket, you could wet the blanket out and then use it as a radiant heat barrier between yourself and the source of the heat. Removing synthetic clothing materials such as Polyester fleece would be a good idea or if an a business environment its best to stick to a wool suit rather than the cheaper mass produced polyester ones . But it is usually hands and face that get the worst of the radiant heat burning. A silk or wool balaclava and gloves weigh nothing (leather gloves are preferable) and are easily kept in the inside pocket of a good wool business suit. If these are not available and time allows it might be preferable to remove your wool socks are use them as improvised gloves.

Heat rises along with hot toxic flammable combustible fumes which can flame out and roll along the roof spaces so its best to keep near to the ground where the air is somewhat cooler and cleaner. Chances are the smoke will get you before any fire will so a commercial smoke hood may make sense if you life or work in buildings higher than 5 stories. (higher than this and a Fire truck Ladder isn't going to get you down to safety)

As with everything else, paying attention to your surroundings and being prepared will greatly increase you chances of survival. If the fire alarm goes off then leave the premises immediately without having to seek permission from superiors, management or the seeking permission from the social group mentality. Knowing where the fire escapes are and how to navigate to them in the dark costs nothing and may just save your life well before having an ex SEAL stating his name to you and him saying how he going to save your life by rappelling from floor to floor with Ethernet cable. (even Chuck Heston and John McClane knew to use a fire hose reel)

I disagree with the show's advice to wet down garments. Water will convert to steam, and is an excellent conductor of thermal energy. This will increase, not reduce, the risk of injury.

LA Police Gear has 5.11 fire-resistant T-shirts on sale for $5 each, down from $40. Quite a deal. The fit is generous; I have a 46"-47" chest and I found the XL a bit loose, but the L fit very nicely. The seams are all flat sewn and the armpits have a gusseted panel for an unrestricted fit.

A fire-resistant T-shirt doesn't make you fireproof but its one less thing to burn & melt into your skin.

One aspect of the episode which seemed kind of funny for about two seconds until I got the point was taking a camera phone picture of the emergency evac sign next to the elevator, and also how Cade's "rear security" guy had to keep sticking those Post-it's along their route.

I think the average viewer may think those two actions are odd and ridiculous. But the average person doesn't realize how disoriented you can be in a fire--dim lightning, blinding smoke, stress, unfamiliar office layout on a different floor, etc. Unfortunately, thick black smoke makes for boring TV images so I don't think that they really got that point across in the show. They did show a lot of flames, though. Most people still probably think that "a fire" looks like a lot of flames when in reality there's a good chance you won't see any flames because you can't even see your hand in front of your face from all the smoke.

They never did have to backtrack and use those Post-it's, did they? I think that would have been an interesting thing to demonstrate and then people would understand why they did it.

Would first responders be trained to follow that Post-it trail? Personally, I think the bread crumbs were just for them, but maybe it's like someone stranded in the bush putting down an arrow showing their direction of travel? Or maybe to help them realize if they ever went in a circle.

I would certainly disagree with the advice to wet down personal clothing garments as well, but wetting down a radiant barrier held out at arms length between a couple of people (or tied to a couple of poles at each corner) could provide a useful radiant heat barrier which could protect a group of people from the radiant heat source. Wetting down the blanket would increase the time it takes to reach its flash point temperature before it catches fire.

Even taking a door of its hinges and using this a radiant heat barrier could be improvised if time allowed.

Am, I certainly agree with using some sort of barrier-I just cannot bring myself to think that soaking myself down would be safe...I have visions of poached veggies in my head!!!

Arney, I agree with you there as well-I think the post its were purely for them. However, I would think in the heat, the glue would liquify & run-taking the note with it. And, finding them again, in a likely near-panic, blinded by smoke (lets face it, you will NOT be able to see, and, as sight is our primary sense, most of us would likely be borderline panicking once lost), may be near impossible. MY opinion is that its more of a placebo than anything else. I have been inside a couple of burning buildings, one an apartment directly above me, where only curtains were on fire. The whole apt was filled with smoke. Even with being familiar with the layout, crawling through thick smoke is VERY intimidating & disorienting. I foolishly went in to get their cat-who, as soon as the bedroom door opened, took off running....

Wetting down bunker gear is apparently the wrong thing to do. But most of us don't wear bunker gear to work.

If it is hot enough to boil the water in your street clothing, it is hot enough to melt synthetic clothing, and it is certainly hot enough to boil the water in your SKIN!

Fortunately, wool isn't synthetic, neither is cotton. The synthetic clothing I wear at work is nomex with nomex, cotton or wool underlayers.

Bunker gear has a vapor liner and insulation, and routinely get wet. Most artificial fabric has a low melting point, and it tends to turn into burning goo that melts into your flesh.

But wool, silk or even cotton is surprisingly thermally resistant, at least for very short exposures. Water reduces that resistance and wetted out fabric transports thermal energy through the fabric faster and more efficiently than the dry fabric fibers and the air pockets between them do. The moisture can convert to steam, as well. Wet fabrics are slower to ignite for precisely these reasons.

There is a simple experiment you can do. Take two identical fabric samples and wet one of them. Place them in a very hot dryer or under a very hot iron for an equal length of time, then drape each one over opposite forearms. While not a perfect model, it will adequately convey the idea.

So, would anyone else prefer to bust out a window and rappel down several floors using ethernet cable to reach a jump-able height or would you shelter-in-place, stuff wet rags under the door, wet down the door/walls, telephone or signal to fire fighters, and wait for rescue? (And we're assuming that both emergency exits are blocked at this point)

This is certainly one aspect of the episode that reminded me of something Bear would demonstrate, like using thick jungle vines to rappel down a waterfall.

I love it when he gets all Bear-y on us! I'm inclined to shelter in place until that becomes completely untenable. I'm also more likely to try dangling outside below the window, if that gets me clear of enough heat and smoke, than rappel. But I'm much more likely to just be another casualty if trapped in a hi-rise fire.

I wouldn't have thought that those little plastic clips on the RJ45 connectors that keep the Ethernet cable in the Computer NICs from falling out would be able to take the strain.

I was just reading a brief news report about this AeroMexico hijacking that is resolved. Apparently none of the passengers even knew that the plane had been hijacked until they were on the ground and saw all the police vehicles.

Well, that's one way to avoid an angry uprising of passengers--hijack the plane quietly. Shhhh.

Yes, I saw that as well. Apparently they let all the passengers off before announcing their intentions...

The full episode of "Surviving Disaster: Fire" is online aT Spike TV.

My thoughts, as a layman:

It seems like he's showing worst case situations. For example, if there'd been a ladder when they got down to the second roof, cool, everyone is down and safe. But they showed the less-familiar example of a rescue bag, and now everyone who's seen the show at least has some idea what to do. (Actually doing it may be a different matter.)


They knew the fire was getting closer. Their anchor was outside that room, wrapped around a desk spanning a doorway. If they waited until the flames got to their room, there would be a strong chance they wouldn't all get out, either just due to time, or due to the heat making their anchor fail. Waiting was not an option.


The RJ45 connectors were irrelevant. They found cables long enough to reach the lower roof in a single length. I wish he'd shown some simple way to tie cables together that wouldn't fail. Most of us know how, but out of a random group of people, how many others would?


Was it the "how to survive a wildfire" thread here where NOT weting down your clothes was discussed? Cade lost points there, which left me feeling a need to confirm anything he said that wasn't obvious, or I didn't already know.

And leaves me concerned about future information.

If I recall that discussion correctly, wet clothes is to be avoided because the water will heat up and burn you, either as steam or as plain hot water. In particular, you can breath through a bandana but keep it dry - you don't want hot steam in your lungs.

If you're ever that close to the heat in an office fire I think you'll be dead to smoke and toxic fumes anyway. Lying down on a patch of incombustible dirt in a forest fire is totally different from being stuck inside a burning building. The smoke will be trapped there with you, and that smoke is much more toxic than that of a wildfire - and in a wildfire, that smoke has somewhere else to go.

In a wildfire, you die from heat and burns. In a housefire you typically die from the smoke before the heat kills you.

So wetting clothes or not wetting clothes...? I have no idea. The idea is essential that evaporation will cool you, but if this is only useful as long as you're not burned by hot steam. I'm speculating that for this is useful conditions are such that you would not be that badly burnt anyway... but if wet clothing can make a difference between light burns and no burns, then I'm all for wetting your clothes.

I am left wondering what the sprinkler system was doing.
If the sprinklers tripped like they should have then the question of whether to wet your clothes or not is kind of moot, isn't it?

I suppose knowing still doesn't change my behavior. Almost all I wear at work is synthetic golf shorts and dri-fit shirts. If in a hi-ri fire am I too take off all my clothes, including synthetic skivvies? haha. Not the best time to go streaking. Though it would certainly make it to Snopes whether I lived or not.

I read an interesting article on NOMEX CVC uniforms. The jumpsuits worn by tankers, pilots, etc. While fire resistant it still doesn't stop the heat affecting other articles of clothing being worn under it. Its highly recommended that soldiers wearing NOMEX do not wear synthetic shirts or skivvies like Under Armour, instead to where cotton products.

Cotton and wool work well under a nomex flightsuit. Massif (not affiliated) also has some nomex long sleeved crew-tops and T-shirts that work well without the flightsuit. Nomex fleece is surprisingly comfortable.

I never wear poly without a layer of cotton or wool under.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this statement about Nomex not stopping heat. Nomex is highly heat resistant, but if exposed long enough to high enough temperature, your flesh will eventually burn. And in case someone gets to that point, then I would agree that it would be better not to be wearing undergarments that will melt and make your injuries even worse.

Actually, this talk of Nomex got me to thinking. Although wet clothing is a better heat conductor than dry clothing, what if the logic involves flame resistance rather than heat insulation? Nomex will burn when directly exposed to flame, but remove the flame and the burning stops. Apply flame to your clothing and it burns. What happens if you remove the flame? I would think that most clothing will continue to burn and spread. I'm also assuming that wet clothing would stop burning or burn very slowly once any direct flame is removed. Comments?

Nomex is "heat resistant" in that it is resistant to melting and burning. It is NOT some miracle insulator. A thin Nomex shirt does not protect your skin from heat much/any better than a similar thickness of cotton or wool.

I'm not sure if you're replying to my post or comms, thseng.

In fairness to comms, as I re-read comms' post, I think I am not correctly reading the intent of his point about Nomex. I think we're both saying the same thing--the heat will get through the Nomex, and in that case, yes, it's probably better not to be wearing synthetics underneath. I was thinking that his phrase "doesn't stop" meant "does not insulate at all". That's why I was mentioning that Nomex does have insulating properties, more than your typical fabrics.

I was trying to look up the insulating property for Nomex and I happened to run across this statement which would seem to a supporting argument for the show's suggestion to wet down your clothes. From this page, in the Vertical Flame Test section.



So, if we go back to that flashover scene from the episode. Remember that his clothes kept burning after the flashover (actually...was that before or after they wet themselves down???). If he could have avoided that additional heat from his clothes continuing to burn after the flashover, his injuries may have turned out less severe or burned less of his body.

Heat and open flame are two different animals. Cotton may serve as an insulator from a heat source, while at the same an open flame could ignite the same cotton. A nomex outer garment such as a flight suit protects the wearer from open flame (for a finite period). The clothing an individual is wearing under the nomex provides additional protection from the heat -- cotton and wool perform well in this role because they don't melt. Polyester fabrics would be a poor choice.

While nomex will not support flame (burn) nor melt, what it will do is char and then it just disintegrates. I've had one of my flight suits for over 30 years, but it's never been subjected to flames.

Flashover and insulative protection can be required for different situations. Radiant heat can be so intense that materials can either burn and/or melt. In these cases, a thin Nomex layer of clothing will not be sufficient for protection and the addition of insulation is necessary to reduce (not eliminate) major burns. Even Nomex/PBI turnout gear has limitations in providing protection from intense heat over any period of time. Keeping low in a fire situation can significantly increase your chances of survival even with thermal protection. With a flashover, there is a sudden “explosion” but short duration of actual fire, in this case the Nomex layer will provide protection in that the material will not melt and may provide a limited and temporary amount of thermal protection. However if the flashover results in other materials in close proximity to you, to ignite, where the thermal load increases and is maintained, the thin Nomex layer will be insufficient in providing protection. Keep in mind; you can incur significant burn injuries as much from intense heat (and steam) as from the fire itself.

Pete

I started watching "Surviving Disaster: Hurricane" last night on the DVR. I had to stop and go to bed. I tried watching the rest this morning but I just had to stop. The timings in the show and the use of the definition "landfall" are all off. You'd have plenty more time to get out if you were paying attention. Although, they were assuming you didn't pay attention ( and missed the roving evacuation announcements, etc ). Still, it seems overly dramatic for a hurricane. The "you're going to die in the next 5 seconds if you don't do this" worked well for the high-rise fire, but doesn't work so much for Hurricane.

Agree with ki4buc. I stopped watching after the guy had his wrist slashed by flying debris. What were they doing outdoors during a hurricane in the first place? Too much drama there. Hurricanes have a lead time, and lead time should allow sensible people to Get Out of its Path. And there is a situation after every hurricane where we're reminded of this.

Since I didn't watch the rest, did they address aftermath issues - being prepared with food, water, maybe ice, first aid etc etc? Making sure to check on your neighbors to see they're alright? Turning out for some community clean up? What it's like to be without power for a week or more? Or did the show stop with the storm?

I too watched it last night. Caught the hijack episode as well. I will no longer be watching this-it is WELL overdramatized. the whole "we have to treat this like a warzone" rhetoric REALLY threw me for a loop. And, happening upon an abandoned house? What about an occupied one? And random alligator attacks-I am wondering how many alligator attacks occured after Katrina? The water there posed the highest threat-raw sewage, dead animals, and something the DIDNT mention-manhole covers were floated off, creating nice little holes for people wading through the water. Get stuck in one of those, and drowning is pretty much guaranteed.

Lono, they did address it in the end, stating to seek out Red Cross camps that would likely be located near hospitals, FD/PD stations, and areas where people could gather (stadiums, etc). They did mention medical aid at these places, as well as food & water. So, they DID cover on that. That was about the brightest point in the show.
Not a fan...I gave it a go after 3 episodes...maybe I am just too jaded, but it always seems too hollywood for my taste.
Cody Lundin should do it!!!

I was just streaming the hurricane episode from the website and half-listening to the show. Didn't finish it, but it didn't sound all that interesting to me. Again, I'm approaching the show primarily as entertainment and even just as entertainment, it sounded boring to me. And Cade has about as much personality as an old tree stump. I thought maybe he'd get more likable after a few episodes, but that hasn't happened.

And I'm always annoyed by how the show has him telling everyone what to do. I would prefer if he explained something, but then everyone else would act as if he weren't there, without him barking orders like some drill sergeant.

Seriously weird: I programmed my DVR to record the Hurricane episode last night, and an episode of The Universe on a diff. channel.

I even confirmed the programming -- I am a master of screwing up VCR/DVD-R/DVR programming, and have learned to check TWICE.

I sat down tonight to watch it, and it's not there. The Universe is, but not Surviving Disaster.

Guess I'll (try to) record it tonight.

or not, they're showing Ultimate Fighter instead.

I haven't finished watching it. So far, the High-Rise Fire episode seemed the best (for about the first ~25 minutes). When they start showing people how to climb out of a building using network cable, well, that's useful knowledge. But, hmm, yeah. The only bad part of that episode: They kind of failed to mention the whole shrink-wrap nature of synthetics. I wonder if that was to avoid an all-out revolt in Corporate America to ridiculous dress codes?

Which reminds me, I need to find some quality Corporate America wool clothes. I ran across a pair of nice black wool dress pants some time ago at Marshall's/T.J. Maxx. They are "Perry Ellis: Portfolio" pants. Very nice.

A $100 wool suit although I must say I do like the $189 suit.

Wow, those are nice. *sigh* It's time's like this that I regret being a giant.
-Blast

Manhole covers were washed away?
That is a flood feature I never considered.
I wonder if there is an affordable fix for that, which a city facing floods might consider?

It isnt something I thought of either. But, the force of the water in the underground system, when the storm suge hit, pushed most of them off. My boys were ALL advised to stay off the roads if possible. A couple of them fell in, but didnt go all the way down (their gear hung them up). It was most dangerous when the water was between ankle & knee deep-deep enough not to see it missing, but not enough water to slow you down enough to react in time.

That's what you get when your order the plywood or plastic ones!

That's what you get when the sewage / drainage system is totally flooded and pressurized. The high pressure in the drainage system will pop out even cast iron manhole covers.

yeah, I failed in trying to make it clearer I was joking! The show did say "stay out of the flood waters". That's right before the random alligator attack.

Okay, finally saw it (online).

I'll give him point for a plausible scenario for how they ended up caught in it in the first place.

Why didn't they just go to that nearby bridge to cross the river? They're on foot, they can get through ANY traffic jam. (I know it was to show how to cross a fast river, but still . . . .)

I liked the info on how a layman should do a swiftwater rescue -- from land!

I liked that the tourniquet info reflected the current thinking I've been finding ("once you put one on, leave it alone!"), and explained why. I like "why"'s.

The "treat high winds like a raging gun battle" was good.

I'm glad he said the house was abandoned. Even if a life depended on it, I would be very reluctant to break into a house that was simply closed up and the occupants evacuated.

My "oh, duh!" was "a gallon of buoyancy will float 8 pounds." A gallon of water weighs 8 lbs (actually 8.3 ), so, of course, a gallon of air will give 8 lbs of buoyancy. <head smack!>

We don't get many hurricanes (or even typhoons) in San Diego, but there was still a lot of good, usable info, applicable to many situations.

Did anyone see the recent episode about dealing with an active shooter situation? I only saw the first 10 minutes or so but what I did see jived with the training I've had:

- exit the kill zone ASAP
- difference between cover and concealment
- avoid bunching up with other people
- bounding movement from cover to cover

I had to leave before seeing the rest though.